On the Questions and Answer section of the website, here is the question and answer on testing haplogroups:

Q. "Does you genetic Map show mtDNA or Y-DNA or specific sets of markers? Will there be a list of related Surnames available at some point?"

A. "Our map is based on about 600,000 genetic markers across the whole genome, excluding the mtDNA and Y-DNA for the time being. mtDNA and Y-DNA will only show the history of those particular bits of the genome, whereas our analysis looks at the whole genome.We do have data on both mtDNA and Y-DNA that we plan to look at as well and compare to our current analysis but we haven't managed to do this yet."

So, unfortunately, it looks like Y-DNA and MtDNA analysis will come at a later date.

I asked the following question and got the following answer.

Q. "Will the analysis allow you to identify various populations such as Celts, Saxons, Vikings, Mesolithic Settlers, Neolithic Settlers and have you any plans to integrate results from the Ireland DNA Atlas project to give a total picture for the Isles?"

A. "Hi Gerard,

By comparing our UK samples to other European Countries, we are able to get an understanding of the relative contributions these different Countries have had to the various genetic groups that we have found in the UK. We can certainly define genetically distinct groups in the UK according to our analysis but assigning the differences to particular historical events can be very difficult. For example, the Norse Viking influence is obvious, whilst differentiating between the effect of Anglo-Saxon and Danish Viking invasions and the long term peopling of the southeast over the last 12,000 years is much harder to do.

You are right in that we do need to collaborate with other projects and researchers, in particular in Ireland, to get a fuller picture of the British Isles and this is something we hope to do sometime in the future."

I have joined the Irish DNA Atlas project, however they are running behind their UK colleagues so I don't expect results anytime soon. However the methodology is similar which should facilitate integration of the project results.

Just a guess on my part, but from my experience with Eurogenes it seems that the Cornish have a higher Caucasus score than most of the UK and that could indicate a Neolithic Farmining Culture. This in turn could represent a higher amount of Haplogroup G2a.

I'm 75% Irish and 25% French-Canadian with about 90% of my French ancestors coming from Brittany and Normandy. I also show a higher than average (Ireland/UK) score for Caucasus and match mostly with Cornish and northern French testers. On the last Eurogenes map I (IEFR1) was in the English Channel with a Cornish guy!

My Mediterranean score is slightly higher than most of the Cornish and Irish, but that is probably from my French 25%. Other than that I test normally with the UK, Ireland and Scotland.

When it comes to autosomal DNA I have always suspected that there is an usually high general northern Atlantic/southern North Sea Mesolithic component in Ireland and Scotland such as the light skins, freckles, light eyes, high red hair frequency, very large head dimesnions etc, robust build etc that I find hard to believe are Neolithic in origin. Those type of characteristics are found all round the north Atlantic and north sea fringe in a way that cuts across later cultural divisions. I tend to think that the y DNA in Ireland is very misleading and largely relates to a much later period than the autosomal genes. That is pretty much in line with Coon, Hooton etc conclusions from massive physical anthroplogy surveys of Ireland around about the 1940s. Y-DNA is so misleading in some ways. Irish yDNA is overwhelmingly only apparently 4500 yeas old but the settlement of the island is 10000 years old. In fact it seems that a large percentage of the Irish are descendants on the male line of about 10 guys who lived within the last 2000 years if you add up NW Irish, southern Irish etc. So Y-DNA is a very poor guide to overall genetics of the populations. The studies using tons of autosomal markers gives the reality of genetic relatedness on the whole.

When it comes to autosomal DNA I have always suspected that there is an usually high general northern Atlantic/southern North Sea Mesolithic component in Ireland and Scotland such as the light skins, freckles, light eyes, high red hair frequency, very large head dimesnions etc, robust build etc that I find hard to believe are Neolithic in origin. Those type of characteristics are found all round the north Atlantic and north sea fringe in a way that cuts across later cultural divisions. I tend to think that the y DNA in Ireland is very misleading and largely relates to a much later period than the autosomal genes. That is pretty much in line with Coon, Hooton etc conclusions from massive physical anthroplogy surveys of Ireland around about the 1940s. Y-DNA is so misleading in some ways. Irish yDNA is overwhelmingly only apparently 4500 yeas old but the settlement of the island is 10000 years old. In fact it seems that a large percentage of the Irish are descendants on the male line of about 10 guys who lived within the last 2000 years if you add up NW Irish, southern Irish etc. So Y-DNA is a very poor guide to overall genetics of the populations. The studies using tons of autosomal markers gives the reality of genetic relatedness on the whole.

Autosomal tests agree with you. The Irish usually show anywhere from 60% to 75% of Northwest Euro genes depending on the test. When I refer to higher Caucausus score, I'm talking about 8% instead of 2%. Depending on the Autosomal test, most people in The Isles show anywhere from 1% to 10%. On average, Irish show anywhere from 15% to 25% Mediterranean depending on the test. Scots usually show a higher percentage of Eastern European genes which is most likely from a Scandinavian influence.

So, I don't believe anyone is saying that the Irish, Welsh and Cornish are a majority Neolithic, but more so than some others in the UK.

Hard to say, Cornish seem to be a little more Mediterranean, slightly pulling to France, as well as lower East European than people from central or eastern England for example. Irish tend to be a little less Mediterranean than Cornish from what I have seen. Though, we are talking very marginal values between all three types here.

Well duh, one might say, I could take one look at geography and figure that one out. Well...yeah the algorithm is inherently tied to geography...(except extremely isolated pops such as Basque samples)

Heber appears to be the only one of us who has taken advantage of the place on the website of that summer exhibition at the Royal Society that says "Until 8 July you can ask the scientists about their work through this website." Since it's about to open (for one week only), and there hasn't yet been a flood of questions, this might be a good time to get an early position in the queue. After some thousands of people see it, they may get a lot of questions.

Furthermore, by collaborating with a couple of other large projects (within the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2), we have access to genetic data from about 6,300 more samples from throughout Europe. With these, we are currently looking to see if we can detect those European regions that contributed to the clusters that we observe in the UK.

When it comes to autosomal DNA I have always suspected that there is an usually high general northern Atlantic/southern North Sea Mesolithic component in Ireland and Scotland such as the light skins, freckles, light eyes, high red hair frequency, very large head dimesnions etc, robust build etc that I find hard to believe are Neolithic in origin. Those type of characteristics are found all round the north Atlantic and north sea fringe in a way that cuts across later cultural divisions. I tend to think that the y DNA in Ireland is very misleading and largely relates to a much later period than the autosomal genes. That is pretty much in line with Coon, Hooton etc conclusions from massive physical anthroplogy surveys of Ireland around about the 1940s. Y-DNA is so misleading in some ways. Irish yDNA is overwhelmingly only apparently 4500 yeas old but the settlement of the island is 10000 years old. In fact it seems that a large percentage of the Irish are descendants on the male line of about 10 guys who lived within the last 2000 years if you add up NW Irish, southern Irish etc. So Y-DNA is a very poor guide to overall genetics of the populations. The studies using tons of autosomal markers gives the reality of genetic relatedness on the whole.

Autosomal tests agree with you. The Irish usually show anywhere from 60% to 75% of Northwest Euro genes depending on the test. When I refer to higher Caucausus score, I'm talking about 8% instead of 2%. Depending on the Autosomal test, most people in The Isles show anywhere from 1% to 10%. On average, Irish show anywhere from 15% to 25% Mediterranean depending on the test. Scots usually show a higher percentage of Eastern European genes which is most likely from a Scandinavian influence.

So, I don't believe anyone is saying that the Irish, Welsh and Cornish are a majority Neolithic, but more so than some others in the UK.

Dienekes has posted something relevant that seems to confirm that NW European is basically a Mesolithic thing. He posted a paper showing that mt and autosomal DNA from Mesolithic burials in Spain are most close genetically to northern Europeans.

I suspect the north European component=MesolithicMed=NeolithicCaucasian=beakers??

the light skins, freckles, light eyes, high red hair frequency, very large head dimensions etc, robust build etc that I find hard to believe are Neolithic in origin.

Fortunately I have not taken down my text on colouring, so I can prove you wrong immediately. The common SNPs for light eyes and skin are not ancient at all. They appear to have spread first in the Neolithic.

Dienekes has posted something relevant that seems to confirm that NW European is basically a Mesolithic thing. He posted a paper showing that mt and autosomal DNA from Mesolithic burials in Spain are most close genetically to northern Europeans.

This does not mean that northern Europeans are 100% descended from hunter-gatherers who arrived there in the Mesolithic. It just means that Neolithic farmers from the Near East overwhelmed hunter-gatherers in most of Europe (which is clear from craniometric studies as well), but not in the eastern fringes less suitable for agriculture like the Baltic region and the steppe and steppe/forest, where it was hunter-gatherers who adopted whatever suited them from farming neighbours, or just carried on hunting (in the most northern regions.)

It is an irony that so much of Europe was later over-run by descendants of said people of the steppe, who therefore spread another layer of DNA of Mesolithic origin over the pre-existing one in the Baltic, and had a huge impact on those parts of Europe where the descendants of Neolithic farmers had hit problems and their populations had declined, which was mainly Central and North Europe. In parallel with the spread of the IE speakers was that of the Finno-Ugric speakers to their north, also carrying Mesolithic-type DNA to the Baltic.

The "components" that Dienekes and others love to find in autosomal DNA will generally reflect composites, not single inputs from one period.

I always thought that blue eyes, red hair and pale skin came from NW Europe or Europe at least. It used to be associated with cold wet climate. Most of the red haired people I know are taller then average (me anyway). I think this was the subject of one of my first posts and rms2 thought the same thing. The DNA deviance, so we're told that blue eye only appeared in Caucuses (i think) 10,000 B.C.ish. It is worth considering that in the neolithic the population of Brittan increased from a a few thouand to a few hundred thousand. If these genes are regressive and both parents must have it, would it not need to be present in the larger population group? JeanM was considering Mesolithic DNA being retained in the likes of fishing communities etc that have strong family connections and would not have been in competition with farmers. I find it interesting that the area from which blue eyes originated (supposedly) is now predominantly brown eyes with pockets of blue in certain areas as far as N India. This has been put down to Asian incomers.

I always thought that blue eyes, red hair and pale skin came from NW Europe or Europe at least. It used to be associated with cold wet climate.

The association with climate is spot on. But mutations don't have the knowledge to crop up exactly where they are going to be most useful! :) They crop up any old where. Then natural selection does the rest. If you read the page I link to, it is all explained, I promise. With references, charts etc. Here it is again: Who do you look like?

We don't know where the most common mutation for blue eyes first appeared. It is just a guess by one academic that it might have been somewhere near the Black Sea, since the same mutation for blue eyes is found in Europeans and people in the Near East.

JeanM was considering Mesolithic DNA being retained in the likes of fishing communities etc that have strong family connections and would not have been in competition with farmers.

That's right - round the Baltic, etc. Were we talking about the West of Ireland in that context? The dark colouring that is supposed to be found there?

That myth just keeps getting repeated but there are massive surveys that disprove it. Its been disproved by surveys including the massive Harvard survey and they even went looking for the mythical Med. Irish in fishing communities etc but found it to be a myth, even when held strongly by locals. You couldnt get a more fair skinned people then the western Irish. I think Hooton found the highest rate of freckly fair skin in the world in SW Ireland for instance. The minority with slightly darker skin in Ireland is associated with the east and especially areas that had more in the way of later settlers. Eyes are overwhelmingly light (blue or pale green). The normal type in western Ireland is very fair skin, light eyes and mid-dark brown hair with a minority of red, golden-brown etc. The western Irish also seem to me to be noticeably taller and broader than the east and that was observed before in the Harvard survey and I think earlier observers too. It was observed in Scotland too that the west was taller. The darkness of the western Irish (and the west Highlanders in Scotland) consists of nothing more than a high percentage of dark brown hair which is normally actually combined with light eyes, fair and often freckly skin and taller stature. I find myself that small slight individuals tend to be found in the east and I have noticed city life really does not agree with the Irish and the working class populations of the cities have a lot of short poorly developed types.

Dienekes has posted something relevant that seems to confirm that NW European is basically a Mesolithic thing. He posted a paper showing that mt and autosomal DNA from Mesolithic burials in Spain are most close genetically to northern Europeans.

This does not mean that northern Europeans are 100% descended from hunter-gatherers who arrived there in the Mesolithic. It just means that Neolithic farmers from the Near East overwhelmed hunter-gatherers in most of Europe (which is clear from craniometric studies as well), but not in the eastern fringes less suitable for agriculture like the Baltic region and the steppe and steppe/forest, where it was hunter-gatherers who adopted whatever suited them from farming neighbours, or just carried on hunting (in the most northern regions.)

It is an irony that so much of Europe was later over-run by descendants of said people of the steppe, who therefore spread another layer of DNA of Mesolithic origin over the pre-existing one in the Baltic, and had a huge impact on those parts of Europe where the descendants of Neolithic farmers had hit problems and their populations had declined, which was mainly Central and North Europe. In parallel with the spread of the IE speakers was that of the Finno-Ugric speakers to their north, also carrying Mesolithic-type DNA to the Baltic.

The "components" that Dienekes and others love to find in autosomal DNA will generally reflect composites, not single inputs from one period.

What I learned from this study is:

"It now appears clear that the Mesolithic substratum in Europe was: 1. Well outside the modern range, contributing a little to extant populations 2. Its contribution in northern populations was higher than in southern ones 3. It may be responsible for the pattern of Asian-shift observed for non-Mediterranean European populations

The first complete Mesolithic mtDNA genome retrieved There is a remarkable genetic uniformity in Europe during the Mesolithic period Modern Iberians are not direct descendants of the 7,000-year-old hunter-gatherers Genetic discontinuity between Mesolithic/Neolithic populations supported by simulations.

My guess at mtDNA and Y would be U (U5b2c1) and I (I2). I was interested in the Swedish study which found H in a Megalithis site. Could these people have coexisted with the Atlantic Megalithic people."

I found this comment on Dienekers blog comments interesting.

"They dont look Iberian thats for sure but they cluster darned close to the Brits. Not bad for 7,000 years. La Brana is NW Spain, an area with long-term cultural connections to France, Britain and Ireland. The Irish even quote Portugal-ish as their genetic homeland."

Here is my view of Celtic migrations. I find successive waves of migrations along the Atlantic fringe.

JeanM I was thinking these pockets could exist in any similar place/circumstances to W Ireland. Parts of Scotland. Maybe this could have something to do with the amount of I in Scandinavia. Isolated Fjords, fishing communities, just a thought.Interestingly are some statistics on the decrease in the amount of blue eyes in the U.S.A. If someone was good with maths maybe they could work out some kind of time scale and population shift.As for skin pigmentation on one of Spencer Wells TV shows some expert claimed it could take 90,000 year to go from black to white. I think natural selection and the amount of rickets took care of that in the paleolithic. One thing about the blue eyes 10,000 B.C. thing is that it stats they are due to reduced melanin. I have read from a few sources (years ago) that they were to do with the bodies ability to cope with copper (copper oxide is blue). This was also attributed to red hair. There was more I'll try and find some notes.

3. It may be responsible for the pattern of Asian-shift observed for non-Mediterranean European populations

He is definitely wrong about this. I noticed that brana was closer to Africans while others, including polako, have noted that brana is closer to both africans and east asians. Dienekes was trying to argue that middle easterners, closer to African, colonized europe so much that Europeans became "african" shifted away from brana. (Realize dienekes is not saying Europeans have african admixture)

Anyways, with modern Europeans being further from Africans and east asians I would guess that is due to drift, ie greater time apart.

JeanM was considering Mesolithic DNA being retained in the likes of fishing communities etc that have strong family connections and would not have been in competition with farmers.

That's right - round the Baltic, etc. Were we talking about the West of Ireland in that context? The dark colouring that is supposed to be found there?

That myth just keeps getting repeated but there are massive surveys that disprove it. Its been disproved by surveys including the massive Harvard survey and they even went looking for the mythical Med. Irish in fishing communities etc but found it to be a myth, even when held strongly by locals. You couldnt get a more fair skinned people then the western Irish. I think Hooton found the highest rate of freckly fair skin in the world in SW Ireland for instance. The minority with slightly darker skin in Ireland is associated with the east and especially areas that had more in the way of later settlers. Eyes are overwhelmingly light (blue or pale green). The normal type in western Ireland is very fair skin, light eyes and mid-dark brown hair with a minority of red, golden-brown etc. The western Irish also seem to me to be noticeably taller and broader than the east and that was observed before in the Harvard survey and I think earlier observers too. It was observed in Scotland too that the west was taller. The darkness of the western Irish (and the west Highlanders in Scotland) consists of nothing more than a high percentage of dark brown hair which is normally actually combined with light eyes, fair and often freckly skin and taller stature. I find myself that small slight individuals tend to be found in the east and I have noticed city life really does not agree with the Irish and the working class populations of the cities have a lot of short poorly developed types.

I love when this conversation comes up because the darkness applies so well with my family. My father was a Kehoe from Northwest Co. Wexford and his hair was jet black, with brown eyes so dark it was hard to distinguish the pupil. I have three cousins (different generations and two families) living in the same area who are like my Dad. His mother was from Swatragh, County Derry and had dark brown hair and dark brown eyes, but not as dark as my father. She had one brother the same as her. The Quinns/Slamons of Derry are short and stocky (being nice) and the Wexford Kehoe can be tall and slender. Neither areas are near the coast. The Kehoes and many neighboring families came down from the Wicklow Mountains. We had a Kiernan family in my neighborhoos from Leitrim who were very dark of hair and eyes.I know my father freckled, but my skin is fairer. Can't really say about the others other than none had olive skin.My father has the name Taaffe in his family, but mostly Wexford names like Ronan, Nolan and Connors. My cousins have the name Byrne. The Derry crowd is Quinn, Slamon, and Rea.From being in Derry and Wexford, I'd say Wexford has more dark Irish and that extends into Carlow and Wicklow. Just what I found to be true.

That myth just keeps getting repeated but there are massive surveys that disprove it. Its been disproved by surveys including the massive Harvard survey and they even went looking for the mythical Med. Irish in fishing communities etc but found it to be a myth, even when held strongly by locals. You couldn't get a more fair skinned people then the western Irish.... The minority with slightly darker skin in Ireland is associated with the east and especially areas that had more in the way of later settlers.

Thanks for sorting that one out Alan. As you say it keeps coming up.

Quote

I find myself that small slight individuals tend to be found in the east and I have noticed city life really does not agree with the Irish and the working class populations of the cities have a lot of short poorly developed types.

You get that everywhere - related to protein input. I have some comparative figures on height over the centuries in various regions in Who do you look like? I thought I also had some on the effect of industrialisation in Britain, but can't seem to locate them now.

As for skin pigmentation on one of Spencer Wells TV shows some expert claimed it could take 90,000 year to go from black to white. I think natural selection and the amount of rickets took care of that in the paleolithic.

You still haven't read my stuff, have you? :) Until people took up farming their d.i.e.t (sorry - the software on this forum swallows that word) was high in fatty fish, so people even in the north were not desperately short of vitamin D.

Quote

One thing about the blue eyes 10,000 B.C. thing is that it states they are due to reduced melanin. I have read from a few sources (years ago) that they were to do with the bodies ability to cope with copper (copper oxide is blue).

Copper doesn't come into it. Paler skin, hair and eyes are all due to decreased melanin production in humans and other animals. Our DNA codes for melanin production. This is protective in creatures like ourselves with exposed, largely hairless skin. A mutation at crucial points in the code will cause a fault in melanin production. The effects will differ according to which bit of code is faulty.